Diego Garcia Military Base

Debate between Earl of Minto and Baroness Smith of Newnham

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, this is an extremely important Statement concerning the future sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory. I begin by expressing my disappointment with the Government’s handling of the timing of this announcement. This is a matter of national security and territorial integrity, and this decision directly affects how our country is perceived on the international stage. To slip in an unscheduled Statement moments before these Houses rose for Recess shows a disregard for Members in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. Matters of this significance deserve to be discussed, and the Government’s actions scrutinised, in good time, and it is my view that the Government timed their announcement to disrupt that duty of scrutiny, despite efforts made the Official Opposition to raise this question on parliamentary time on the Thursday before Recess. I hope that the Minister can start his response by addressing this question.

The Statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence in the other place was effusive in highlighting the importance of the Diego Garcia base. He said:

“For more than 50 years, the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia has been a launchpad to defeat terrorists, to prevent threats to our nation, and to protect our economic security. This base keeps Britain secure at home and strong abroad”.


Can the Minister explain why, given that this is the Government’s latest assessment, they are surrendering that very same British sovereign territory to a foreign power—a power that only recently has agreed to deepen maritime co-operation with Russia?

Once sovereignty has been relinquished, it can never be regained. The text of the treaty also includes the provision that the UK must

“expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third State directly emanating from the Base on Diego Garcia”.

Does the Minister believe that it is in the interests of our national security to share advance information on military operations with third countries? Can he promise that this information, which we are now obliged to share with Mauritius, will never be shared with China, Iran or Russia, with whom the Mauritians are becoming increasingly friendly?

I, like many other noble Lords—and honourable Members in the other place—took exception to the comments of the Prime Minister during his press conference. He said that those of us who oppose the deal are on the same side as Russia and China. That is not only deeply offensive but entirely false. Just last week, we saw news reports of China’s ambassador to Mauritius hailing this deal as a “massive achievement” for Mauritius and then confirming that China would welcome it into the belt and road initiative. It is vividly apparent that, contrary to the Government’s claims, Mauritius is becoming ever more under the influence of China. It is no surprise that China welcomes this deal; it plays right into its strategy of weakening western democracies and hobbling our abilities to operate internationally.

Over the weekend, noble Lords will also have considered the renewed US views on China’s intentions towards Taiwan as context. Has the Minister considered how this treaty makes us look on the world stage? The Prime Minister has signed an agreement which will surrender a strategically vital resource to a foreign Government. He has also, it appears, committed us to sharing military information with that same Government, who show increasing signs of support for our enemies. The Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have both argued that this agreement is necessary to safeguard our ability to operate from the Diego Garcia military base, in the face of legal challenges. However, the legal case is entirely opaque. Noble Lords will know that this all stems from a non-binding advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, a court which counts among its number a Chinese judge who is a member of the Chinese Communist Party and who voted against condemning Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine.

We also know that the International Telecommunication Union does not have the power to issue binding rulings against the UK in respect of the base on Diego Garcia, and it is unclear whether a case would be brought against us in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Even if it had done so, it would have been a case that we could have opposed and appealed. Everyone seems to agree that the British Indian Ocean Territory is a critically important asset, not just to the UK but, by direct or indirect association, to all our allies.

To crown it all, we are paying for the privilege of surrendering our own territory. The Government, to the incredulity of Members across both Houses and people throughout the country, hail this as a success. In reality, I can find no positive report of this chosen route in any media or other channel not linked to China. Does the Minister honestly believe that this is a good deal that benefits the United Kingdom? When he responds in a moment, can he say with his hand on his heart that handing the Mauritians £30 billion over 99 years to lose one of our vital strategic assets is something that we should welcome and be proud of?

The Minister will be well aware that those payments are front-loaded. The agreement laid before Parliament states that, for the first three years, the United Kingdom will pay Mauritius £165 million per year, then £120 million for each of the next 10 years and an additional £45 million every year from year one for infrastructure improvements in Mauritius. That is for the next 25 years, which means that, over the next five years, we will be paying Mauritius £1 billion.

Let me put that into a defence context. £1 billion could pay for 10 new F35 Lightnings, 30 Apache attack helicopters, 125 Boxer armoured fighting vehicles, or an entire Type 26 frigate—which must rankle with the noble Lord, Lord West, among many others.

Given that the strategic defence review, revealed yesterday, contained 62 recommendations, all of which have been accepted by the Government, and at a time when the Chancellor is warning of additional tax rises and spending cuts, does the Minister not agree that a far better use could be found for this money? Can the Minister tell us exactly how this will be funded? Can he help the House to understand how the obligations to the British people are being fulfilled by pursuing this deal at the taxpayer’s expense? More importantly—and this is a simple question requiring a yes or no answer—will this money be paid out of the defence budget? If so, how can the Minister justify that, given the Government have spent the last few months attempting to talk up their increase in the defence budget?

This agreement must make the United Kingdom less secure, weaker on the global stage and at greater risk than under the current status quo. There are good deals and not so good deals. One of the key skills in deciding to complete a deal or not is knowing when it is wiser to withdraw than continue, and that is exactly what the previous Government did.

We should be mindful of the critical fact that, once sovereignty has been relinquished, it can never be regained. It is also somewhat ironic that, as the Government announce their strategic defence review on the one hand, they are wilfully disposing with the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory on the other, along with significant amounts of taxpayers’ hard-earned cash.

Finally, but just as importantly, what of the Chagossian community, which is already widely displaced? A one-off token payment of £40 million to assist resettlement and readjustment to an unknown and distant sovereign power—and its intentions—in the light of the overall magnitude of the Mauritian gains, both territorial and financial, seems almost derisory. Can the Minister advise the House how this sum is to be allocated, tracked and ensured, for the benefit of all Chagossians?

Noble Lords will be aware of the Motion against ratification of the treaty, tabled by my noble friend Lord Callanan. Let me be clear: we do not do this lightly, but this arrangement poses such harm to our nation and, indeed, international security, and is such a flagrant violation of the rights of the Chagossian community, that we feel it our duty to bring this fatal Motion to the House. We hope noble Lords across the House will weigh the agreement carefully and support our Motion. This deal cannot be the right thing for our country to do.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I find myself in a rather unusual position. On most defence issues, it is very easy for the Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson to agree with the Official Opposition, and to find that the Minister will also be saying very similar things. On most issues, we find ourselves saying how vital the defence of the realm is, and that we are broadly on the same page, with a few minor differences.

On this issue, however, there seems to be such a clear difference of opinion between the Official Opposition and the Government Benches that I will ask only a few clarificatory questions for those of us who are not Privy Councillors, have not been briefed on Privy Council terms and are therefore unable to express the effusive views on the importance of Diego Garcia that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, mentioned the Secretary of State had expressed. For anyone who read the Statement delivered in the other place just before Recess, the Secretary of State was indeed crystal clear about the importance of Diego Garcia to the security of the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State particularly made the point that the deal is vital because we retain control over Diego Garcia, but he also pointed out how important it is as a joint US-UK military base. So what role does the United States play on Diego Garcia? I realise that the Minister may feel that this is privileged information that he is not able to articulate in open session, but we need to understand what is going on with our relationship with the US in this regard.

The noble Earl, Lord Minto, said that the only people who are really in favour of this are the Chinese, yet the Secretary of State pointed out that none other than Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Rubio and President Trump have said that this is a “very long-term” and “very strong” deal. So whose interests is it in? Is it in the UK’s national interest or is it primarily about the US’s interest?

Finally—because I want to give the Minister time to reply—this deal has apparently been two and a half years in the making. His Majesty’s Government have been in office for only 11 months. That means that, for over a year and a half, the negotiations were under the Conservative Government. What has changed between the two Governments to make one party now think that this is a vital deal, and the other implacably opposed?

Strategic Defence Review

Debate between Earl of Minto and Baroness Smith of Newnham

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, first, I add to the widespread praise that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, General Sir Richard Barrons and Dr Hill have rightly received for leading and delivering this comprehensive and thorough strategic defence review document. It is indeed a transformational and genuinely strategic review and goes into great depth as to the purpose, intention and delivery of the defence of our nation and our interests abroad in its widest sense. Their emphasis that as a nation, and a proud one at that, we need the entire people of these islands to share, comprehend and be openly supportive of defence and all that we expect of our brave and committed Armed Forces is a point extremely well made. I also thank the Minister for taking the time to meet me yesterday prior to publication of the review. It was much appreciated.

As technological advance changes defence and our preparedness at a frightening pace, it is absolutely right that the entire country supports and has a broad understanding of what the future might hold. The review proposes some 62 recommendations, all of which the Government have accepted, and a number of which have already been in progress from the previous Administration. However, as the Secretary of State for Defence made clear in the other place, the world we live in now contains novel threats that are arguably more dangerous than we have ever faced before. As the spectre of Putin’s Russia looms over Europe’s eastern flanks, we can no longer take peace for granted. The case for transformation is both compelling and immediate.

It is in that vein that we on these Benches welcome the contents of the review: the commitments to continuing the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine programme, to GCAP, to increasing munitions production and to stockpiling are all most positive steps. However, I have a number of concerns. The first, I am sure, will come as no surprise to the Minister: there has been much consternation as to the correct level of funding required, but it is evident that the Overton window on defence spending is shifting rapidly. We on these Benches welcome the Government’s announcement that they will increase the Ministry of Defence budget to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. However, the recommendations in the review all come with a price tag, and the authors were clear that the plan is really affordable only if and when the Government commit to 3%.

As of yet, the Government’s messaging has appeared rather mixed, to put it politely. Most confusing were the Defence Secretary’s comments this morning on “BBC Breakfast” that the Government have an ambition to reach 3% by 2034, then that he was 100% confident that 3% was achievable in the next Parliament and then that reaching 3% was predicated on economic growth. It appears that all the Government have given are vague statements that—in the fullness of time, in due course, when conditions allow and at the appropriate juncture—they may raise defence spending to the 3% required. It is surely a position that Sir Humphrey would be thrilled with, so can the Minister confirm that all the recommendations in the review can be paid for in full within the current spending limits?

That becomes even more important when we consider the recent overtures from NATO. We have seen today that the Secretary-General will strongly push member states to bolster their budgets to 3.5% annually, plus 1.5% for defence infrastructure. The Danish Prime Minister has stated that waiting until the 2030s to boost defence spending will be “too late”, and the former Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Patrick Sanders, has said that he is “really worried” that the Government are not acting fast enough on defence. Can the Minister confirm that the UK will follow NATO’s likely new targets when they are set at the Hague summit?

I have two further observations. First, there appears to be a slight lack of focus on amphibious capabilities. In fact, there are only three mentions of the word “amphibious” in the document. Given that the Government have scrapped HMS “Bulwark” and “Albion”, thereby leaving the Royal Navy with no landing platform docks and relying solely on the Bay class ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, ships that themselves are ageing rapidly, can the Minister provide further clarity on the future of the UK’s amphibious capabilities?

Secondly, the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I would have hoped for further measures on the reform of the structures within the Ministry of Defence. There is no doubt in my mind, from the albeit limited time that I served there, that there is considerable scope for streamlining, updating and commercialising large components of the overall modus operandi. In my view, the MoD has outdated views and practices, particularly in the areas of risk management, the concept of change and commercial imperative, that restrict the productivity and effectiveness of such a critical and large organisation.

Page 65 of the document mentions the increasing use of AI within the MoD to enable the department to redeploy staff currently working in finance, human resources and commercial functions, thereby aiming to reduce the Civil Service costs by 10%. That is of course a positive step, although perhaps a little unambitious, but it also states that the focus should be on productivity rather than headcount. Given that the MoD civilian personnel headcount was 61,706 as of 1 April 2025, almost as large as the British Army itself, is there not a compelling case for looking at how we might streamline the Civil Service radically within the Ministry of Defence?

Further, the review calls for the creation of a number of newly formatted bodies: a defence investors’ advisory group, a defence innovation organisation and a defence research and evaluation organisation. My concern here is that these new bodies could simply add to the already intricate web of overlapping and competing organisations and agencies of the MoD, thereby confusing the structure rather than enhancing it.

As the Minister knows well, many additions are made for valid reasons, but rarely are existing structures dismantled to make way for innovation. For example, we already have the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, which was split from the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency in 2001, with responsibilities for advanced technological research. How will the new defence innovation organisation and defence research and evaluation organisation fit in with DSTL? We must ensure that there is no duplication of functions if we are to have, as the review sets out, a policy of “one defence”. The critically creative work undertaken by DSTL needs as much freedom from interference as possible for it to flourish and deliver exception.

I have a final question for the Minister. Given the importance of the review and the significance of its recommendations, I hope the Government will provide time for a full debate on the strategic defence review to allow the House to fully consider the UK’s vital new strategy for defence. The challenge now is how to fund it in full to fulfil the hopes and expectations of the reviewers and the contributors to the limit.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I start where the noble Earl, Lord Minto, finished by suggesting that it would be extremely welcome for your Lordships’ House to have a full debate on the strategic defence review. It is a full, thorough and detailed review that merits detailed reading. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his team have clearly put in a huge amount of work, and it would repay noble Lords and the Armed Forces if we were able to explore at least some of the 62 recommendations in detail.

The review gives many recommendations, some of which have been trailed but some have not, and which are sometimes much more complicated than we might imagine. There are commitments to our Armed Forces, to recruitment and retention and to increasing the number of the reserves. That is the headline, but the detail of the recommendations says that we should increase the size of the reserves “when funding allows”. That gets back to the fundamental question raised by the noble Earl: 2.5% is not going to take us far enough. What plans do His Majesty’s Government have to enable us to implement the 62 recommendations. assuming that the other place and your Lordships’ House, after due scrutiny, agree with the Government that all 62 recommendations should be implemented?

There is clearly a need for a lot of detailed scrutiny because many issues are raised in the review, starting with the essential context that the world has changed a lot since the start of the post-Cold War era, and indeed since the start of the review. Many issues need to be thought about, some of which we have had the opportunity to think about over months and years while others have been floated recently. As the noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out at Questions, the commitment to the nuclear deterrent is obviously important and welcome. I was expecting to see the noble Lord, Lord West, here to take up the discussions on the future of sea capabilities; the transformation of the carriers is presumably something on which he could run a Question for Short Debate by himself.

There are many detailed questions about capabilities and procurement but also about transitions—for example, the upgraded Typhoons. Are we sending back the existing Typhoons for an upgrade or procuring more of them and keeping the production of the Typhoon going, pending the introduction of Tempest? There are a lot of questions about procurement that are worth considering.

There are also questions not just about the headline figure of 2.5% of spending but about savings. On page 5, there is a suggestion that £6 billion of new savings will be found, and then there is talk of spending £11 billion. Does the £11 billion include the £6 billion that has just been found from savings and is now being recycled, or is the £11 billion new money? There are a lot of issues that would probably merit longer than the Minister will have for his response today.

There is one welcome point in terms of recruitment. It is very welcome that a little bit of recommendation 16 suggests that the medical requirements will differ from role to role, because that has clearly been part of the recruitment difficulty. That is very welcome, as are the commitments to improving accommodation and the defence industrial base. There are many more questions than I have time to ask and the Minister has time to answer, but we welcome the review and look forward to working with the Government over the next decade and beyond.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Earl of Minto and Baroness Smith of Newnham

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am aware that debate is taking a little longer and that we have more groups of amendments that are single amendments than many people had hoped. I therefore propose to be incredibly brief. This amendment raises the issue of the Armed Forces covenant and to what extent the Armed Forces commissioner would be subject to that covenant.

It might sound axiomatic—to use the phrase that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, used in Committee— that the Government are bound by the Armed Forces covenant but, technically, the Government are not bound by it. The covenant relates to businesses and the providers of housing and of the health service, but it does not apply to the Government per se. This amendment seeks to ask to what extent the Armed Forces commissioner will be required to look at the Armed Forces covenant. It may be that the Minister says that that is left entirely to legislation on the Armed Forces covenant, but I think it would be helpful to understand whether the commissioner would or could be bound by the legislation.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, we visited the issue of the Armed Forces covenant during our deliberations in Committee. During that debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, raised the importance of the covenant and how vital it is that the commissioner be fully able to investigate covenant issues relating to the welfare of service personnel and their families. I was grateful, as I think were all noble Lords present, for the Minister’s response. It was welcome to receive clarification that the commissioner will be able to investigate such matters.

As I noted in Committee, the duty to have regard to the principles of the covenant was established in statute by the Armed Forces Act 2021. That was a significant step forward and we have seen much progress since then. I also note the Government’s intention to embed the covenant fully into law, which is indeed a welcome step. Again, I think it is already a given that the commissioner should have due regard to the covenant, and the comments from the Minister have given me the certainty that they will indeed do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing this amendment. As she pointed out, we had an amendment in Committee that listed a whole set of different groups to which we suggested the Armed Forces commissioner should pay particular attention. It was not intended to be something that would ever be brought to a vote. In the light of the Atherton report and the Etherton report, it is important for the commissioner to think about groups that have faced particular problems within His Majesty’s Armed Forces, so exploring who the commissioner should take into consideration and where there might be a need for particular inquiries or reports seemed to be worth discussing.

Although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, that recruiting under-18s is something that we accept, it is important to bear in mind that people aged under 18 are still technically children. It is important that the commissioner, in looking at their welfare, looks to other bodies that deal with that. In this regard, mentioning family members is also important, because if we are talking about recruitment, as the noble Lord has just done, it is not simply whether a 16 or 17 year-old wants to sign up but whether their parents feel comfortable in that as well. This is an important issue for us to discuss, but obviously not to push to a vote on this occasion.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raises an important point. The welfare of service personnel who are aged under 18 is a matter that all noble Lords wish to guarantee. I personally have fond memories of training junior leaders. They were, despite their age, some of the keenest, most determined and, at times, most fearless individuals, certainly in relation to trying out new skills, that I had the honour of serving with.

I think it right, therefore, that the Government give serious consideration to the treatment of young people recruited into the Armed Forces. They are part of the future of our Armed Forces, and it is in all our interests to provide an environment that allows them both to thrive and to flourish. When we face recruitment and retention issues, as has been discussed already, we cannot have a situation in which young people are deterred from joining up or encouraged to leave prematurely. I would be grateful if the Minister would update the House on efforts His Majesty’s Government are taking to deal with the concerns of young people serving in our Armed Forces.

The amendment from the noble Baroness also mentions the children of service personnel. They are impacted in a unique way by their parents’ service, and this can easily get forgotten or overlooked. They often have to move home when the military requires their family to relocate, which can be to different and disparate parts of the country, or indeed overseas. Moving so frequently is by no means an easy thing to ask of anyone, let alone a child. Leaving friends behind, losing a sense of normality and becoming accustomed to an entirely new way of living would be challenging for even the most adventurous of us. I mentioned in Committee that 62% of those who left the Armed Forces reported family concerns as one of their core reasons for leaving. We must address this issue head-on if we are to deal with the crisis of retention.

In direct response to the amendment from the noble Baroness, which mentions the Children’s Commissioner, I say that there must be clear delineation of responsibility for the welfare of service personnel. The Armed Forces commissioner must be responsible for investigations regarding general service welfare matters from service personnel, regardless of age. The Children’s Commissioner and the Armed Forces commissioner are two very distinct roles, and for good reasons. To conflate the two could risk confusion over responsibility. If a person under 18 has an issue regarding their welfare, as part of their military service, they should go to the Armed Forces commissioner only.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, seek to do what amendments that I tabled in Committee also sought to do, albeit rather less elegantly. My amendment on having parliamentary scrutiny for the Armed Forces commissioner was the source of considerable concern to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, who said that it was far too detailed to put in the Bill. Therefore, I am extremely glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, has decided to bring back this amendment, because it is important that we have a parliamentary role, and he has phrased that elegantly both in the formulation of his amendment and in what he has just said.

If we want to have an independent Armed Forces commissioner appointed by the Secretary of State, it would be appropriate that the way of appointing that person stands up to scrutiny—and both Houses of Parliament playing a role would be an effective way of doing that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that and what role His Majesty’s Government feel able to grant to Parliament in this regard.

On Amendment 14, the change of those minor words—from “may” to “must”—suggests something rather important. As with so much legislation, if you have not read the Bill, the change from “may” to “must” makes very little sense. But this is about adequate resourcing of the Armed Forces commissioner. It was pointed out earlier in today’s debate that we are already looking at considerably increasing the funding for the Armed Forces commissioner, compared with the current ombudsperson. If work needs to be done, it is vital that the role of the Armed Forces commissioner be adequately resourced, because if not, and the Armed Forces commissioner is unable fully to fulfil the job given to them, what message does that send to the Armed Forces and their families? If cases are brought and the Armed Forces commissioner does not have time to deal with the complaints or to undertake the reports needed, that will undermine the commissioner’s prestige and credibility.

If “may” cannot be converted to “must”, can the Minister explain to the House how funding will be provided and give us some guarantees that, in the longer term, the Armed Forces commissioner will be adequately resourced? As his noble friend Lord Beamish said, we might be happy that this Government will give adequate resources, but we are legislating not just for this Government but for future ones as well.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, for his Amendment 13, which addresses the highly significant matter of the appointment process and the independence of the commissioner.

My noble friend Lord Courtown, in winding for the Official Opposition at Second Reading, raised the differences between the proposed commissioner and the German armed forces commissioner, as we have heard today. One of the main differences is the method of appointment, as the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, rightly raised. The German commissioner is elected by the Bundestag, with nominations coming from the different party groups. That role establishes a significant role for the German Parliament in the appointment process.

The commissioner here shall be appointed by the Secretary of State and not elected by Parliament. The Government have indicated that their successful candidate will appear, I believe, before the Defence Select Committee in the other place. I have two questions. First, how will the Government ensure that the person they appoint remains entirely independent? Secondly, would the Minister be amenable to the commissioner also undergoing pre-appointment scrutiny before the International Relations and Defence Committee of this House too?

On Amendment 14, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on financing what we all agree is a most positive initiative.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Earl of Minto and Baroness Smith of Newnham

Committee stage
Monday 24th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I support these amendments from these Benches. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, felt inspired to stand up and speak on the first day in Committee and that he has now brought forward these two amendments.

On reading the Bill, my assumption was that it included regulars and reservists, but the very fact that these questions are being asked means that it would be very helpful if the Minister could clarify the intention of His Majesty’s Government and, perhaps, think about some minor amendments to the wording of the Bill for clarity.

Some of the amendments we brought forward last week, for example about funding, might look rather different depending on whether we are looking at a commissioner whose remit is, in essence, to deal with regulars or one who deals with reservists, because the sheer numbers are different and some of the concerns might be different. If we are looking at funding the commissioner, and his or her sub-commissioners or deputy commissioners as outlined in the Bill, it would be very useful to be absolutely clear that we are covering reservists as well as regulars, which I assume is the Government’s intention but which is not entirely clear.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, mentioned cadets, which also came up in discussions last week. I assume they do not fall within the Bill’s remit because they are not subject to service law, but are there ways in which they, too, would be in scope?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Harlech for tabling Amendments 21A and 21B, which seek to ensure that the commissioner prioritises the interests of the reserves appropriately. My noble friend has brought some excellent expertise to this issue as a serving reserve officer himself. The importance of the reserves within the overall Armed Forces is undeniable; their critical role is both admired and valued by all.

As the Minister will no doubt tell us, reserves will have recourse to the commissioner because they are subject to service law when in training and on active duty. That said, my noble friend is seeking to make a broader point that the commissioner should consider the interests and experiences of the reserves equally to those of regular personnel. We support him in his desire to ensure that our reserve units are prioritised appropriately.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Earl of Minto and Baroness Smith of Newnham

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 8 and 9 are in my name and the name of my noble friend Lady Goldie. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for adding his name to these amendments. I know that he is particularly concerned with these issues of welfare and their impacts on the families of our Armed Forces personnel.

These amendments seek to ensure that the commissioner will consider both the educational needs of service families and Armed Forces pensions. They therefore seek to expand on the somewhat limited definition of general service welfare matters in the Bill. I will preface my remarks by acknowledging that we have not presented an exhaustive list—nor do we intend to. But we believe that these issues are of sufficient importance to warrant debate during our deliberations today.

Many Armed Forces families depend on private schools. By the very nature of their service, personnel frequently find themselves moving locations, be that through overseas deployment or reassignment from one garrison or airbase to another. This poses a number of welfare concerns. It requires service personnel to either uproot their families or put them into an independent school, which allows their children to remain in a familiar educational setting. Imposing VAT on fees for independent schools will regrettably result in higher fees being passed on to the service men and women, who are simply trying to ensure the continuity of their children’s education.

I impress on the Minister that charging VAT on private school fees for military families will make becoming or remaining a service member less attractive, not more.

In response to this and in the interest of fairness, the Government have decided to uprate the continuity of education allowance. However, as my noble friend Lady Goldie has been keen to highlight through her Oral Question on 5 February and her letter to the Minister, there is real concern that this uprating will not be sufficient to cover the new higher fees. Unfortunately, this has the potential to negatively impact both recruitment and retention.

The issue that I have outlined is even greater when one considers the provision of special educational needs for the children of service personnel. There are already significant barriers to service families receiving adequate support for their children with special educational needs. It can take up to two years to receive an education, health and care plan from the local authority but, given that service personnel often find themselves relocating, this process is made all the harder.

There can be no doubt that the education of their children constitutes a serious welfare matter for those serving in our Armed Forces. All parents want the best for their families, and ensuring that they will not have to withdraw their children from school, or that they will be able to support their child with special educational needs, impacts on their morale. This is evidenced by responses to the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey, where in 2024, 62% of respondents reported that the impact of service life on their families was the main reason for leaving the services. We know that more must be done to improve this, and I am concerned that some of the Government’s measures regarding education may have the reverse effect.

The intention of Amendment 9 is to confirm with absolute certainty that the commissioner will consider pensions and the role they play in recruitment and retention. Let us be in no doubt that they remain one of the major benefits offered to service personnel. In their Autumn Budget, the Government proposed charging inheritance tax on the death-in-service payment while a service member is not on active duty abroad. We know that the benefit will continue to be exempted when a service member dies when deployed on active duty, but the exemption will not apply when the death occurs at home. This is nothing less than an injustice. If Sergeant Jones, for example, has an unfortunate accident while driving his car and passes away, not on active service, he will be penalised. He may have just come back from an active war zone the day before, where, had he been killed, his benefit would have been protected.

The principle here is surely that it does not matter where a service member dies; their families will continue to grieve regardless. They will still require support, both financial and emotional, and the new commissioner should be able to provide that. This Bill is aimed at protecting the retention and recruitment of Armed Forces personnel. It seems fitting that the commissioner must therefore consider the education of service families and death-in-service payments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to what I hope is the last of my amendments today, Amendment 11, on the further matters that the commissioner may investigate. Before I speak to my amendment, I have a question that arises from the two amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and others, and so ably spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, which is about the scope of the commissioner’s role. I think I heard the Minister say earlier in response to Amendment 2 that the purview of the Armed Forces commissioner applies as long as somebody is in uniform, from the day of attestation, and I understood it to be for the time that the person is in uniform, and that it did not also apply to veterans. I would be interested to know whether I have misunderstood or whether the amendments—